Subject: Re: [boost] [gsoc 2013] draft proposal for chrono::date
From: Anurag Kalia (anurag.kalia_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-05-04 13:15:17
Howard Hinnant-3 wrote
> On May 4, 2013, at 12:01 PM, Anurag Kalia <
> > wrote:
>>> I think I see the disconnect. Simplifying as much as possible
>>> not too much), you prefer:
>>> days_date(year::rep, month::rep, day::rep, no_check_t);
>>> whereas I prefer for the same functionality:
>>> days_date(year, month, day);
>>> or for the sake of removing part of the debate:
>>> days_date(year, month, day, no_check_t);
>>> Your design doesn't require that year, month and day objects be
>>> "validation free", but mine does.
>> Howard, I am curious why are we not trying to make the default date type
>> beginner-proof? Is it because we already have the "slash" form that
>> validates the date?
> I think Vicente put it best:
> On May 4, 2013, at 10:25 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba <
> > wrote:
>> H.H. approach is a little bit different
>> * date constructors build unchecked dates
>> * date factories build checked dates
> I found this separation of behaviors to be something easily learned,
> remembered, and does not require the no_check_t syntax.
It makes sense when said like that!
-- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/gsoc-2013-draft-proposal-for-chrono-date-tp4646142p4646640.html Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk